Winter 2011, Club Deportiva Guadalajara has been knocked out of the title run by small team Queretaro FC leading to a disappointing end to a great season. Guadalajara, otherwise known a Chivas, needed someone to change their mentality, someone to lead them to victories again. Who could be put in charge of such an important task? None other than the Barcelona and Netherlands legend: Johan Cruyff. However, in order to be effective, he would first have to show that he has the qualities necessary for a leader. Cruyff is able to do this via practical wisdom, a topic that is gone into depth in the seventh chapter of Heinrichs's Thank You For Arguing, in which he divided it into three parts.
First, one must show off one's experience. This was probably the easiest part for Cruyff. Having won twenty-four titles as a player and fourteen titles as a manager, Cruyff has a lot of material to show off. The mere idea of a player that came second behind Pele in the World Player of the Century poll would come all the way to Mexico to help a team in the highly criticized Mexican football league would have any Chivas fanatic ecstatic. The man is already a legend. When it comes to showing off experience, Cruyff is basically set. It's the next two parts that require Cuyff's effort.
The second and last parts of practical wisdom are bending the rules and appearing to take the middle course. These two come into play in a decision Cruyff made recently, and by recently I mean yesterday. One of the biggest factors that define Chivas is the fact that the team is composed of only Mexicans. It is one of those traditions that should never be broken. However, this has posed a small problem for Chivas. With a more limited player pool to choose from, Chivas has recently suffered in keeping the level of the squad high despite the departure of most of the players that formed a part of the great team that played during the mid 2000s and were even crowned champions in 2006. As a result, Chivas has produced poor results in the recent years. Cruyff's response to this proved to be very controversial. Cruyff proposed that Chivas allow non Mexicans to join. What?! Cruyff had just decided to go against the tradition of the team! It was later clarified that Cruyff meant that players born outside of Mexico but of Mexican heritage would be able to join. By doing this, Cruyff is able to successfully fulfill the last two requirements of practical wisdom.
By altering the rules of the club, Cruyff is able to bend the rules and show that he has the willpower and desire to change the results of the club. Then, by not going to extremes in the changes that he does, Cruyff appears to take the middle course. This is able to fill all the Chivas supporters with hope, and allows the fanatics to believe in Cruyff.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Oh Pitbull
Logos, pathos and ethos. These are those words that you can hear endless times in English class yet still have no idea what they mean. The one that is probably the biggest victim of this is ethos. Your teacher describes that ethos is the use of character. Ok, what does that mean and how do you do that? In the sixth chapter of Thank You for Arguing, Heinrichs attempts to answer these questions as clearly as he can, and he is able to succesfully do this with some examples that are really easy to understand. However, I want to show a different approach to the art of ethos. While Heinrichs shows how you should take advantage of ethos, I want to show you the opposite of ethos. In this entry you will learn about how to mess up in the use ethos through everyone's favourite baldy: Pitbull.
I want you to ask yourself something: do you like Pitbull? I'm not asking you about your trivial musical taste. I'm asking you if you like Pitbull as a person. This response is an effect of ethos. Personally, I don't really like Pitbull as a person.
Something about Pitbull makes me think that he didn't do too hot in his English classes. Maybe it is strange rhymes or how he always sings about the same things. Another possible reason is that he has no understanding of how to use ethos.
Two tools that Heinrichs gave us for the use of ethos are bragging and appealing to the values of the audience. When it comes to bragging, Pitbull seems to be a master. The amount of bragging that occurs in his songs get to a point where it is ridiculus. However, overusing the tool of bragging doesn't make you good at ethos. In the contrary, at extreems it actually hinders the success in terms of ethos. You can't really like a character who won't shut up about his money and how "Tiger Woods times Jesse James equals Pitbull all night long." In the other hand, when it comes to appealing to the audience's values, Pitbull is at the other extreme. Lyrics-wise, Pibull is only able to appeal to the values of people like him. Now, I am not going to judge people like Pitbull, but the use of lines such as "I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan" and "Fo sho, flood the club like New Orleans" is pretty worrisome. If you do not think that these are brilliant lyrics and feel that they are offensive, then you have just experienced how it is to be in the recieving end of bad ethos. These lines don't make you like Pitbull. In fact, now you wouldn't actually want to hear what Pitbull wants to say. Such is the importance of ethos in rhetoric. Ethos is basically the door, the first step in succesfully convincing.
I want you to ask yourself something: do you like Pitbull? I'm not asking you about your trivial musical taste. I'm asking you if you like Pitbull as a person. This response is an effect of ethos. Personally, I don't really like Pitbull as a person.
Something about Pitbull makes me think that he didn't do too hot in his English classes. Maybe it is strange rhymes or how he always sings about the same things. Another possible reason is that he has no understanding of how to use ethos.
Two tools that Heinrichs gave us for the use of ethos are bragging and appealing to the values of the audience. When it comes to bragging, Pitbull seems to be a master. The amount of bragging that occurs in his songs get to a point where it is ridiculus. However, overusing the tool of bragging doesn't make you good at ethos. In the contrary, at extreems it actually hinders the success in terms of ethos. You can't really like a character who won't shut up about his money and how "Tiger Woods times Jesse James equals Pitbull all night long." In the other hand, when it comes to appealing to the audience's values, Pitbull is at the other extreme. Lyrics-wise, Pibull is only able to appeal to the values of people like him. Now, I am not going to judge people like Pitbull, but the use of lines such as "I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan" and "Fo sho, flood the club like New Orleans" is pretty worrisome. If you do not think that these are brilliant lyrics and feel that they are offensive, then you have just experienced how it is to be in the recieving end of bad ethos. These lines don't make you like Pitbull. In fact, now you wouldn't actually want to hear what Pitbull wants to say. Such is the importance of ethos in rhetoric. Ethos is basically the door, the first step in succesfully convincing.
Hopefully, you were now able to actually learn something from Pitbull:
how not to use ethos. Pitbull should feel proud. Or he could just not care.
He's probably too busy counting his money in order to care about what some high
school kid has to say about his rhetorical skills.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Gary Johnson 2012
Every four years there is an event that shakes the world. People around the world gather around to presence and event that never fails to be memorable. No, it is not the FIFA World Cup. No, it is not the Olympics either. Why would you even consider the Winter Olympics? What I'm referring to is the elections for the President of the United States.
It is only just that an event of this magnitude gets to get all the attention it can. Because of this, the two main candidates of this election get to be on not one, not two, but three debates that are broadcasted across the world. I had the pleasure to witness the third and final debate before the elections next month and am happy to say that nothing was accomplished in those eighty minutes were the future of America was supposed to create an impact on the people. This is mostly due to how the two candidates greatly limited themselves in their use of rhetoric.
If I had to do a quick review of the entire debate, it would probably look like this:
Mitt Romney: Right now, America is at its worst condition it has ever been in every aspect. These last four years have been the worst four years of America's history. Vote for me.
Barack Obama: You have contradicted yourself in every statement. A few weeks ago, you said things completely different from what you are trying to say right now. I will now proceed to continue doing the same things that I have been doing for the last four years AKA accomplishing nothing.
In all actuality, the use of rhetoric showed to be incredibly unbalanced. The amount of blame that was used by the two candidates was so great that I was basically drowning in the forensic statements. They couldn't go two sentences without referring to something that the other did in the past. This proves to be a problem since America is currently in dire need of change, in other words, deliberative ideas. However, this need cannot be fulfilled if the people that are supposed to do this are too busy talking about the past to even give a complete idea of the future.
To give the candidates credit, they were able to make good use of ethos during the debate. When Romney started to talk about how his dad owned a car company when talking about how he supports the small companies, I couldn't help but imagine him in a pink polo with a popped collar. Too bad that this little image was quickly shattered since it was the same Mitt Romney that said that Detroit should go bankrupt.
There were also some slight glimmers of pathos when Romney said that the economy was on the "road to Greece" and when Obama identified soldiers as "young men and women" when attacking the use of the military. However, this was not able to save the debate. It was generally repetitive and uninteresting making me want Gary Johnson to be elected president.
It is only just that an event of this magnitude gets to get all the attention it can. Because of this, the two main candidates of this election get to be on not one, not two, but three debates that are broadcasted across the world. I had the pleasure to witness the third and final debate before the elections next month and am happy to say that nothing was accomplished in those eighty minutes were the future of America was supposed to create an impact on the people. This is mostly due to how the two candidates greatly limited themselves in their use of rhetoric.
If I had to do a quick review of the entire debate, it would probably look like this:
Mitt Romney: Right now, America is at its worst condition it has ever been in every aspect. These last four years have been the worst four years of America's history. Vote for me.
Barack Obama: You have contradicted yourself in every statement. A few weeks ago, you said things completely different from what you are trying to say right now. I will now proceed to continue doing the same things that I have been doing for the last four years AKA accomplishing nothing.
In all actuality, the use of rhetoric showed to be incredibly unbalanced. The amount of blame that was used by the two candidates was so great that I was basically drowning in the forensic statements. They couldn't go two sentences without referring to something that the other did in the past. This proves to be a problem since America is currently in dire need of change, in other words, deliberative ideas. However, this need cannot be fulfilled if the people that are supposed to do this are too busy talking about the past to even give a complete idea of the future.
To give the candidates credit, they were able to make good use of ethos during the debate. When Romney started to talk about how his dad owned a car company when talking about how he supports the small companies, I couldn't help but imagine him in a pink polo with a popped collar. Too bad that this little image was quickly shattered since it was the same Mitt Romney that said that Detroit should go bankrupt.
There were also some slight glimmers of pathos when Romney said that the economy was on the "road to Greece" and when Obama identified soldiers as "young men and women" when attacking the use of the military. However, this was not able to save the debate. It was generally repetitive and uninteresting making me want Gary Johnson to be elected president.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Rhetorical Soccer
It is very common to find a person who thinks that arguing and fighting are basically the same. This person is wrong. This is what Jay Heinrichs tries to clarify in the second chapter of his text, Thank You for Arguing. Before describing the many methods of arguments, Heinrichs clarifies what arguments truly are and how they are different from fighting.
Heinrichs defines argument as the attempt to make someone to want to do what you want. In the other hand, fighting is the attempt to force someone into doing what you want. "You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (17). A way in which I like to represent this is in international conflicts. If you try to solve the conflict with a treaty, both parties are generally happy with the result. This would represent the argument. In the contrary, if you decide to go in by force and invade the other party in the conflict, you might have a victory, but you will be in the risk of the other party fight back in the form of a revolt or revolution due to the built up anger against your methods. This would represent fighting. Sadly, this representation is very literal and very large scale making it seem like an unrelatable, uninteresting lecture. Because of this, I decided to make a much "cooler" representation. If you carefully analyze it, soccer can actually be used as an example of this contrast.
Soccer and language! Many athletes go to play in order to get away from classes such as English. Who could have possibly made a connection between these two polar opposites? This guy (points at self with both thumbs).
The method of victory in soccer, much like in most other sports (not golf), is getting the most points. Because of this, every player aims for his team to score many goals. There are two different ways for one to approach this goal (pun intended). The first one is the tactical approach. Whether it's the passing moves of Barcelona or the waiting for the counter attack of Chelsea, tactic shows to have a huge impact on the result, and tactic, in its core, is a form of argument and rhetoric. When you think up a tactic, it is impossible to avoid taking into consideration the behavior of the opponents since they are a fairly important part of the game. If you pass the ball around, you are trying to make the opponent's players run after the ball and get tired, making it easier to score. If you defend and look for the counter attack, you are trying to make the opponent's players spread out and leave behind a lot of space for an attack, making it easier to score. In both scenarios, the tactics are trying to make the opponents do what the teams want them to do: Heinrichs's definition of argument.
If tactic represents the arguments in soccer, what represents the fights? This part is actually quite literal. In soccer, fights are fouling the opponent. By making absurd tackles, you can injure the opponent's players, stop plays, and possibly make it easier for your team. However, fouls don't give you goals or points. In fact, fouls get your players sent off. Fouls are an option that is also a big risk. This is a characteristic shared with fighting. It has the possibility of working, but it leaves you open and at risk.
If you like to watch soccer, it is pretty obvious that tactic is preferable over fouling. In the same way, for people that know rhetoric, it is pretty obvious that argument is preferable over fighting. This goes to show how universal rhetoric is even if you are not aware of it.
Heinrichs defines argument as the attempt to make someone to want to do what you want. In the other hand, fighting is the attempt to force someone into doing what you want. "You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (17). A way in which I like to represent this is in international conflicts. If you try to solve the conflict with a treaty, both parties are generally happy with the result. This would represent the argument. In the contrary, if you decide to go in by force and invade the other party in the conflict, you might have a victory, but you will be in the risk of the other party fight back in the form of a revolt or revolution due to the built up anger against your methods. This would represent fighting. Sadly, this representation is very literal and very large scale making it seem like an unrelatable, uninteresting lecture. Because of this, I decided to make a much "cooler" representation. If you carefully analyze it, soccer can actually be used as an example of this contrast.
Soccer and language! Many athletes go to play in order to get away from classes such as English. Who could have possibly made a connection between these two polar opposites? This guy (points at self with both thumbs).
The method of victory in soccer, much like in most other sports (not golf), is getting the most points. Because of this, every player aims for his team to score many goals. There are two different ways for one to approach this goal (pun intended). The first one is the tactical approach. Whether it's the passing moves of Barcelona or the waiting for the counter attack of Chelsea, tactic shows to have a huge impact on the result, and tactic, in its core, is a form of argument and rhetoric. When you think up a tactic, it is impossible to avoid taking into consideration the behavior of the opponents since they are a fairly important part of the game. If you pass the ball around, you are trying to make the opponent's players run after the ball and get tired, making it easier to score. If you defend and look for the counter attack, you are trying to make the opponent's players spread out and leave behind a lot of space for an attack, making it easier to score. In both scenarios, the tactics are trying to make the opponents do what the teams want them to do: Heinrichs's definition of argument.
If tactic represents the arguments in soccer, what represents the fights? This part is actually quite literal. In soccer, fights are fouling the opponent. By making absurd tackles, you can injure the opponent's players, stop plays, and possibly make it easier for your team. However, fouls don't give you goals or points. In fact, fouls get your players sent off. Fouls are an option that is also a big risk. This is a characteristic shared with fighting. It has the possibility of working, but it leaves you open and at risk.
If you like to watch soccer, it is pretty obvious that tactic is preferable over fouling. In the same way, for people that know rhetoric, it is pretty obvious that argument is preferable over fighting. This goes to show how universal rhetoric is even if you are not aware of it.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Escaping the Body
As the story continues, we are able to learn more about the person of interest: Orhan Pamuk. This is most evident in the chapter appropriately named "Me" that mostly deals with his characteristics when he was a child. One aspect that I really like about Pamuk's writing is how comfortable he is with his readers. Not every writer would be comfortable writing about he incidents when his "bibi" goes hard from threatening to eat things and his brother's comics. Pamuk is completely open when it comes to his feelings and experiences giving the sensation that he might be writing this book not only for his readers but for himself as well.
In order to introduce himself to the reader, Pamuk starts out with the fact that when his brother started going to school, he found himself most of the time alone. This is a nice tool that Pamuk uses in order to bring the reader closer to himself since, while finding away from his brother for the first time, this is probably the time period in which Pamuk discovered himself too.
The focus of Pamuk's description is that of his separation from the real world. Whether he is talking to his bear or imagining himself killing people while he killed flies, Pamuk never shows much interest in the real world. In fact, Pamuk actually shows a little bit of hate towards the real world and real people being "thankful most of them belonged to the streets outside" (25). One possible reason as to why Pamuk shows such dislike towards the outside world is his lacking in physical qualities, more specifically his height. Pamuk hints at this by describing how his younger self had a sort of obsession towards giants. He would find pleasure in killing flies due to them being so small that they gave him the feeling of being big. As Pamuk describes his complaints on the real world, they mostly involve him being unable to see because he was too small. In the stadium, Pamuk wouldn't be able to see the game because the people in front of him would stand up, and while exiting the stadium, he would feel imprisoned between the many legs of people that were also exiting.
This shines a new light on the meaning behind the other Orhan. Pamuk states that within all his daydreaming was the dream of being able to leave his world by switching with the other Orhan. Orhan sees his life like an imprisonment both physically and spiritually. Daydreams are his method of escape. The idea of another Orhan is not one of another person or another life that he longs to live.
In order to introduce himself to the reader, Pamuk starts out with the fact that when his brother started going to school, he found himself most of the time alone. This is a nice tool that Pamuk uses in order to bring the reader closer to himself since, while finding away from his brother for the first time, this is probably the time period in which Pamuk discovered himself too.
The focus of Pamuk's description is that of his separation from the real world. Whether he is talking to his bear or imagining himself killing people while he killed flies, Pamuk never shows much interest in the real world. In fact, Pamuk actually shows a little bit of hate towards the real world and real people being "thankful most of them belonged to the streets outside" (25). One possible reason as to why Pamuk shows such dislike towards the outside world is his lacking in physical qualities, more specifically his height. Pamuk hints at this by describing how his younger self had a sort of obsession towards giants. He would find pleasure in killing flies due to them being so small that they gave him the feeling of being big. As Pamuk describes his complaints on the real world, they mostly involve him being unable to see because he was too small. In the stadium, Pamuk wouldn't be able to see the game because the people in front of him would stand up, and while exiting the stadium, he would feel imprisoned between the many legs of people that were also exiting.
This shines a new light on the meaning behind the other Orhan. Pamuk states that within all his daydreaming was the dream of being able to leave his world by switching with the other Orhan. Orhan sees his life like an imprisonment both physically and spiritually. Daydreams are his method of escape. The idea of another Orhan is not one of another person or another life that he longs to live.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Edgy, Teenage Punk Side of Language
Language is a topic that can and will always be a topic of debate. Whether it's about its concreteness or the application of new rules, a discussion over language is never a rare finding. Precisely this is what is found in the New York Times in a debate between Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner. The two writers find themselves defending their position towards language.
In this article, writers are divided into two different groups: descriptivists and prescriptivists. Descriptivists define language as something that is completely relative and grows along with its writers. In the other hand, prescriptivists see language as something that must be kept under a set of rules. Greene defends the descriptivists and Garner defends the prescriptivists.
Personally, I prefer the prescriptivists. I think that language should be something that contains many rules that help keep it under control. If language doesn't have any definite rules, then all writing would only be a jumble of words that are only able to encapsulate chaos. One way that I like looking at this topic is in a political way. If language was a community, the prescriptivists would be those in favor of a government, and the descriptivists would be those who support anarchy. If all members of a community only had to follow the rules that one believed in, there would be a lack of control that would probably lead the community to ruins.
Another way that I approach this topic is by personifying the two different groups. They way that I saw this was like if the descriptivists were teenagers that want to rebel against their prescriptivist parents. One aspect of this article that led me to reach this image was Garner's manipulation of logos in his debating. In comparison to Greene's piece, Garner's contains a lot more references to other texts and a lot more focused making it seem like an overall better written piece. When Greene has to resort to describing prescriptivists as "'language cranks,' 'oddballs,' 'declinists,' 'self-appointed language guardians,' and 'scolds' who habitually fly into 'spittle-flecked fury,'" I can't help but draw the parallel to a child who doesn't know how to continue the argument and decides to call names instead. Descriptivists might think that they have reached a time period where they will be the strongest, but they must realize that if prescriptivists have survived up to this point, it's for a reason.
In this article, writers are divided into two different groups: descriptivists and prescriptivists. Descriptivists define language as something that is completely relative and grows along with its writers. In the other hand, prescriptivists see language as something that must be kept under a set of rules. Greene defends the descriptivists and Garner defends the prescriptivists.
Personally, I prefer the prescriptivists. I think that language should be something that contains many rules that help keep it under control. If language doesn't have any definite rules, then all writing would only be a jumble of words that are only able to encapsulate chaos. One way that I like looking at this topic is in a political way. If language was a community, the prescriptivists would be those in favor of a government, and the descriptivists would be those who support anarchy. If all members of a community only had to follow the rules that one believed in, there would be a lack of control that would probably lead the community to ruins.
Another way that I approach this topic is by personifying the two different groups. They way that I saw this was like if the descriptivists were teenagers that want to rebel against their prescriptivist parents. One aspect of this article that led me to reach this image was Garner's manipulation of logos in his debating. In comparison to Greene's piece, Garner's contains a lot more references to other texts and a lot more focused making it seem like an overall better written piece. When Greene has to resort to describing prescriptivists as "'language cranks,' 'oddballs,' 'declinists,' 'self-appointed language guardians,' and 'scolds' who habitually fly into 'spittle-flecked fury,'" I can't help but draw the parallel to a child who doesn't know how to continue the argument and decides to call names instead. Descriptivists might think that they have reached a time period where they will be the strongest, but they must realize that if prescriptivists have survived up to this point, it's for a reason.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)